Calimlim v. Goño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Goño, owners of Villa Alexandra Beach Resort and Restaurant, filed a complaint for abatement of nuisance, easement, and injunction against spouses Calimlim. Spouses Calimlim operated informal structures, rest houses, video machines, videoke sets, billiard tables, and sari-sari stores along Matabungkay Beach, which is declared a tourist zone and maritime reserve. Spouses Calimlim's application for a foreshore lease was denied by the DENR, and they lacked necessary permits. Their operations allegedly caused discomfort to guests, obstructed views, produced excessive noise and odor, contaminated water, and posed a fire hazard. Spouses Goño demanded removal, but spouses Calimlim refused, leading to the filing of the complaint after a failed barangay settlement. Spouses Goño claimed a loss of income. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding that spouses Goño failed to prove damage to property or unreasonable interference, and that loss of income was due to competition. The RTC also found no obstruction of light and view and that the alleged water contamination and fire incident did not pose substantial harm. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, finding the structures to be a public nuisance due to occupation of public property. The CA ordered the demolition of structures, awarded temperate, moral, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees to spouses Goño. The CA denied spouses Calimlim's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Spouses Calimlim filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. They argued that spouses Goño violated the Judicial Affidavit Rule and that the CA erred in classifying the structures as a public nuisance. They sought the reinstatement of the RTC's judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in admitting the documentary exhibits despite the alleged violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule. Whether the structures erected by spouses Calimlim constitute a public nuisance. Whether spouses Goño are entitled to damages and abatement of nuisance.
Ruling
The Petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 13, 2023, and Resolution dated February 1, 2024, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 116735 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged violation of the Judicial Affidavit Rule: The Court found no error in the admission of exhibits identified by Rafaelita Goño. Her judicial affidavit took the place of her direct testimony, and she affirmed its contents in open court. Furthermore, spouses Calimlim failed to raise this objection before the trial court, thus waiving the ground for objection. The admissibility of evidence does not automatically equate to evidentiary weight, which is subject to the trial court's evaluation. On whether the structures constitute a public nuisance: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the structures constituted a public nuisance. It is undisputed that the land occupied is foreshore land, a public property. Spouses Calimlim's application for a foreshore lease was denied, and they occupied the land without authority, which constitutes an obstruction and unauthorized use, equating to a public nuisance. The hazardous operations, including an open-fire kitchen and unsanitary waste disposal, posed immediate danger to health, safety, and property, further solidifying its classification as a public nuisance. On whether spouses Goño are entitled to damages and abatement of nuisance: The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that spouses Goño were entitled to remedies. They had exhausted administrative remedies before filing the civil action. The nuisance caused by spouses Calimlim was injurious and posed a threat to safety. The Court sustained the award of temperate damages for unquantifiable pecuniary loss, moral damages for wounded feelings, exemplary damages for public good, and attorney's fees for being compelled to file the action. All monetary awards shall earn legal interest.
Main Doctrine
Structures erected without authority on foreshore land, which obstruct public use, cause discomfort, or endanger health and safety, constitute a public nuisance that may be abated, and the occupants are liable for damages.